Elizabeth Warren is mentioned. All the wisdom and experience of a first term Obama.

Dems need IMO a real candidate, a moderate governing Democrat (Bayh, Webb, ?). Not to win, but to turn the country around.

Republicans: Romney, doubtful. He had his turn. Ryan, a likely candidate. He ran as a competent, but did not electrify. Marco Rubio! Already visited Iowa. Already being attacked by the left. Christy, record popularity in NJ heading into his yellow state reelection. A strong leader. Rick Santorum says he is open to it. (If Romney shouldn't run because he lost, same should go for all who lost to him!) Jeb Bush. A contender last time if he had any other name. I think he would rather put his muscle behind Rubio.

Rand Paul. Merging pro-life, federalism and libertarianism. There is an odd combination. Definitely considering a run.

The Louisiana governor is back as a contender for the presidency four years from now.

The last year has been a bad one for many Republicans, but 2012 was exceptionally kind to Bobby Jindal.

The 41-year-old Louisiana governor ends the presidential campaign cycle as a staple on the Sunday talk shows, a regular subject of 2016 speculation, and a legitimate contender to become the next standard-bearer of a party that once again finds itself leaderless.

And the former Rhodes Scholar has Rick Perry to thank for it all.

As new fault lines begin to form in the national conservative landscape, many influential Republicans told BuzzFeed the dynamic between the governors of Texas and Louisiana may prove key to shaping the future of the party.

Jindal endorsed Perry early on in the GOP primaries, at a time when Republicans were stampeding toward the Texas governor, convinced that he would be the nominee. But if Jindal's initial endorsement was unsurprising, his unwavering fealty — expressed to the bitter end — impressed many in Perry's camp.

"Anything we asked of him, he was there," said one former Perry campaign official. "When the tide was high and when the tide was low, he was a loyal soldier."

The official, who asked for anonymity to discuss the relationship between the two men "in case they end up running against each other," marveled at Jindal's commitment — charging into spin rooms after Perry's spacey and stumbling debate performances, and stumping for the candidate through the last week of an ugly Iowa race where Perry ended up in fifth place.

So, why did Jindal stand by his man?

On the record, aides and operatives in both camps told BuzzFeed it was simply the product of a faithful friendship, describing a personal rapport between Perry, 62, and the younger conservative. They stressed the "friendly competition" shared by their neighboring states — complete with gentle trash talk at meetings of the Republican Governors' Association — and soberly recalled stories of Texas going out of its way to aide Louisiana in post-hurricane cleanup.

"I think Gov. Jindal and Gov. Perry have a strong relationship that goes beyond politics. They're personal friends on top of all that," said Kyle Plotkin, a spokesman for Jindal.

Two Republicans close to Perry even said the Texan would likely forego a second presidential race — which he is said to be actively mulling — if it meant running against his friend, Jindal.

"They have quite a good relationship ... It might be a deterrent," said one.

But granted anonymity to traverse the uncertain terrain post-2012 politics, many of the Republicans in both men's orbits admitted there was more to the story.

Left out of the "BFF" narrative is the extent to which Perry's campaign introduced Jindal to key voter blocs in early primary states, fine-tuned his skills on the stump, and propelled him back into the national spotlight.

Though Jindal failed to get his buddy elected president, his efforts left him exceptionally well-positioned for his own run.

Judy Davidson, chairwoman of the Scott County Republicans, was present at one of Jindal's first campaign stops with Perry in Iowa last year. His stump speech, she recalled, checked all the boxes of an effective surrogate — touting Perry's credentials, confidently predicting victory — but it also managed to weave in the story of Jindal's own greatest executive triumph: his handling of Hurricane Gustav.

In late August 2008, the devastation of Katrina was still an open wound in Louisiana when the state found itself bracing for another potentially disastrous mega-storm. As Gustav barreled toward the coastline, the newly elected governor moved fast, evacuating two million people, securing generators for the hospitals in harm's way, and aggressively mobilizing the National Guard. When the post-Gustav casualty count came in much lower than many had feared, Jindal was heralded across the country as a hurricane-fighting super-governor.

Ostensibly, Jindal brought up Gustav on the stump in Iowa as a way to praise Perry's proactive role in sending helicopters and National Guard units from Texas to help the storm-torn state.

But the takeaway for Davidson and many of her fellow Republicans was a deeper appreciation for Jindal's leadership.

"Everyone really came away feeling like he was a smart guy who had done a lot to help Louisiana recover," she said of that early event.

Meanwhile, among Perry's top aides, there was no denying the utility of Jindal's support — largely as a shield against the early campaign meme that Perry was a dull-witted George W. Bush redux.

"I think there was a tendency to not take some of Perry's policy ideas super-seriously because the dude obviously doesn't have a PhD from Yale or whatever," said one former Perry campaign aide. "But there were obviously reasons Jindal endorsed him, and he was seen as kind of the brain box of the party."

The campaign was not shy about touting Jindal's role in helping to craft Perry's voucher-friendly education proposal and advocacy for a flatter tax system, and they regularly put him on TV to explain and defend the policies.

Jindal also continued to log lots of time in Iowa — and his practice was showing, Perry's aides said.

The Louisianan had suffered a major setback in 2009 when he flubbed his highly anticipated State of the Union rebuttal. The address had been meant as a coming-out party for the rising star, and its substance — a condemnation of universal health care, and a call to shrink the size of the federal government — deftly tapped in to the federalist values that would define conservatism in the coming years.

But his painfully awkward performance — marked by a sing-songy cadence that had the effect of reading a bedtime story to a young child — earned him scathing reviews from pundits in both parties, and comparisons to the creepy 30 Rock character Kenneth.

Plotkin, who has been asked about that low point relentlessly by reporters over the years, gave BuzzFeed his standard response: "That obviously wasn't his best speech, but the substance of his speech certainly still stands."

But fast-forward to 2012, and Jindal was revving up crowds on the campaign trail and demonstrating remarkable comedic timing. A speech he would later give at CPAC Chicago, featuring as its centerpiece a sort of comedy of errors in working with the federal government on hurricane relief, has bounced around the conservative Twittersphere ever since.

One Perry campaign official said Jindal's time on the trail had "absolutely" improved his public speaking skills. And another Republican said that Jindal is now one of the best communicators among the current crop of potential 2016 candidates, despite the early misstep.

"The experience of stumping on the campaign trail is astronomically more difficult than campaigning for governor or Senator or anything else," said one Perry campaign aide. "The point is, yes, he's gotten better."

Jindal's momentum wasn't slowed when it turned out he had backed a losing horse. His transition to Romney surrogate was frictionless, he gave a well-received speech to Republican activists at the RedState gathering in Jacksonville, and he continued to find reasons to return to Iowa.

"If it were just about math, Jeb could convince the party to adopt what polling shows are clearly winning positions. But as the work of scholars Gary Miller and Norman Schofield suggests, it's not a linear equation: It's about momentum and intensity within the Republican coalition.

That's because the newest entrants to a party's electoral coalition are usually its most robust -- and the hardest to roll in intraparty skirmishes. For Republicans, it is the mostly white and older tea partiers, who block electorally beneficial positions on taxes. The next newest entrants to the coalition are Christian conservatives, many of whom also strongly oppose tax increases."

According to this NYT writer the repubs just need another Bush to return us to "clearly winning" positions.

Let's see H blew a "90"! approval rating to lose to Bill Clinton because he couldn't connect with the voters during a recession.

Let's see. W blew a 80% approval rating to barely get 50% of the vote in 04. Then he left office with us in 2 wars and the largest deficit in history as the economy crashed and was saved from a depression only with trillions in funny money and loans being printed faster than water flows out the Mississippi.

No thanks. Last resort.

The writer like all liberals conveniently leaves out the massive spending increase that occurred during the W years. He, like all of them love to point out the 1.6 trillion in tax cuts as being the reason we have such a debt.

And following his illogical reasoning further, he tries to argue we need more compromisers like the Bush family. More concessions on spending more compromise with Crats on programs and higher taxes.

He compares the situation we are in now to 1952. Did we have a 16 trillion debt that was ~ 6- or 70 % of GDP then?

"George W.'s first major legislative accomplishment as president was the enactment of a massive $1.6 trillion tax cut."

I know, wrong thread, but they just can't find a story to tell that doesn't include that falsehood. Rates went down but taxes that are measured only in US$ went up by 44% in 4 years, not down by 1.6 lying trillion.

We shouldn't judge Jeb Bush by his last name, but we can judge him on positions and electability.

His resume is as strong as anyone likely to run. He successfully governed for two terms a major state. Rick Perry will tell you that is a starting point, not a clincher.

My prediction is that Jeb Bush will jump on the Marco Rubio bandwagon. These trial balloons generate feedback and good politicians listen.------------------

I will put her main point on 'Media Issues' but Bill was sued for harassment, disbarred, paid an $850,000 settlement, and Hillary was ... "his greatest enabler. The then-first lady blamed a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' for independent counsel Ken Starr's 'politically motivated' questioning of Monica Lewinsky..."

Not to mention cattle futures. The only element of a felony missing was that the Statute of Limitations had expired before all the facts were known.

Hillary will have her State Dept exit on film when she testifies in open hearings on Benghazi. She took responsibility in general words, but this testimony will follow the full report hopefully loaded with accurate specifics. If she is the candidate, this is the audition.

Thanks for posting this - it's good for balance on the board to be aware of this perspective. What I take from it is that only appearances matter. With a little translation and helping the author finish his sentences, I think one could make a news story or analysis piece out of this. )

My comments in italics: The point of the fiscal crisis is to close the trillion dollar deficit. (Unless I missed something!)

From the New Yorker piece:

"In the final hours of the fiscal-cliff crisis, different potential candidates came up with different answers. First came Joe Biden... However one feels about the compromise package that emerged...Biden got it together and closed the deal" - that did nothing to solve the problem.

"He’s (Biden) worked alongside Senators on both sides for years, and even decades, and that helped" - to get the deal done so that voters who demanded spending raised by a trillion will pay nothing additional for it.

"the no seems most natural for [Rand] Paul" - True and quite obvious!

"Rubio, though, appeared too frankly political. He also was placing a bet about how ideological and extreme the G.O.P.’s base will be in 2016 (very)." - Liberal Drivel (IMHO). Sen. Rubio said it does nothing to solve what he came there to solve. Is that hard to understand? He faced absolutely no reason to vote for bad policy.

"Both Rubio and Paul would have been fairly sure, by the time they cast their votes, that the package would pass, and do so with a majority of Republicans. Paul Ryan did not have the same luxury. If he had decided to pull a Rubio, he might have persuaded enough other Republicans to scuttle it." - The majority of House Republicans DID vote to scuttle it.

"Instead, he (Paul Ryan) was left mumbling about the national interest and the Rose Bowl in the hours before the vote, and then issuing a statement afterward that managed to be both defensive and smug: “There are clearly provisions that I oppose. But the question remains: Will the American people be better off if this law passes relative to the alternative? In the final analysis, the answer is undoubtedly yes. I came to Congress to make tough decisions—not to run away from them.”

- Mumbling? Ryan's friends at Powerline called this deal eating dog food. "The Deal" was better than the alternative and that is what Ryan said. Quite clear IMO. And the Badgers in the Rose Bowl is a BIG DEAL where he comes from. Hopefully it didn't require federal aid.

"...and then Governor Chris Christie held the sort of press conference that only he can, one that made him sound like the anti-Rubio:" (clip at link called shame on congress)

- BS again, IMHO. Chris Christy is mad about "the 66 days" since the storm that people elsewhere haven't paid enough, fast enough, for regional expenses. Does he have a position on the deal? Did he put forward a better deal? Did he think it doesn't affect NJ?

The context of this mess is that voters voted for divided government. Voters sent a House there committed to hold down all taxes. They sent a President and Senate there committed to escalating spending beyond all precedent. Christy's role in it was to endorse Romney early because he was "electable", then do photo-opps with Obama during get out the vote to make himself look bipartisan, then whine about insufficient funds disbursed in a timely manner to his state. What a hero. (sarc.)

I’m intrigued and oddly impressed at how obviously Paul’s maneuvering for 2016. First the trip to Israel, then the bill to nullify any executive actions taken by Obama on guns, now this double-barreled shot at grassroots conservatives’ new bete noire. One of the things about the elder Paul that some people loved and others found off-putting was that he never seemed terribly interested in ingratiating himself with mainstream conservatives. If you’re a fan, maybe you took that as proof of principle, that he was above gladhanding political nonsense towards people foolish enough not to embrace libertarianism wholeheartedly. If you aren’t, you took it as evidence that he disdained the rank-and-file Republicans whose votes he’d need to win and wasn’t willing to bend towards some of their concerns. It’s an open question how similar Ron and Rand are on policy, but from a pure retail standpoint, Rand seems way more willing to play to the wider GOP base. The clearest example to date was him endorsing Romney last year while Ron predictably refused. But dumping on a guy who’s irritated everyone to the right of “Morning Joe” lately is another small yet effective way to do it:

Paul claimed that Christie had “backed down” on gun rights: “You have some Republicans backing down like Christie backing down and criticizing the NRA, and I think that doesn’t do any good.”

When asked by Ingraham why Christie made the comments, he responded that they were politically calculated. “I think he may be solidifying his support with Democrats in New Jersey and maybe liberal Republicans.”

Paul warned Christie that his criticism of the NRA, as well as his criticism of fellow Republicans over the Sandy relief bill, would come back to haunt him if he made a presidential run in 2016. “I think criticizing the Second Amendment movement and the over-the-top ‘give me my money’ stuff, ‘I want all sixty billion now or I’ll throw a tantrum,’ I don’t think that’s going to play well in the Republican primary.”

“I think people need to think through what their position on these things are.” Paul concluded.

The field will be more crowded, with many heavier hitters, in 2016 than it was in 2012, but I’d bet cash money that Rand will do better than Ron did, especially if Obama continues to fiddle on entitlements. The more dire the fiscal situation gets, the more appealing a harder line libertarian appears vis-a-vis a more traditional conservative Republican pol.

As for Christie, between the post-Sandy Obama photo op, the grandstanding on Sandy relief, and now dumping on the NRA while saying nothing about Obama’s own bit of child exploitation, WaPo’s wondering if he’s already finished for 2016. I doubt it. To repeat a point made recently, the lesson of nominating McCain and Romney is that the national Republican primary electorate is way bigger than the universe of grassroots conservatives. Christie could lose every last tea-party vote and conceivably still squeak through to some sort of Romney-esque victory over a divided conservative field. (Then again, if it were that easy, why didn’t Giuliani win in 2008?) But I still think he’d be better off hooking up with Bloomberg and running a serious third-party campaign. For better or worse, after all the betrayals of conservatives lately, that’s his brand now. If he had a few hundred million from Bloomy to jump-start him and some serious media buzz about being the first credible independent candidate since Perot, who knows what he could do? Republicans’ popularity is at a recent historic low in some polls and Christie’s popularity is sky high. If he ends up with the right opponents — Cuomo, say, if Hillary doesn’t run and maybe Rand Paul on the right — it’s not impossible to imagine him contending seriously. Think of it: The first “No Labels” president. What could go wrong?

By DOROTHY RABINOWITZ It was impossible to miss the foreshadowings of the future as Hillary Clinton's week of public appearances wound down to its ending. This, was, of course, the arranged love fest on "60 Minutes," a program that was once the pride of CBS, an unequalled model of investigative journalism. Whatever the object of this piece of investigation was would have been hard to say—but its results, like Mrs. Clinton's appearance before the Congress earlier in the week, left us with a powerful sense of the candidacy to come in 2016. A candidacy not only very much like the one that culminated in the victory of Barack Obama—but one modeled on all its claims, its assumptions.

Mr. Obama had won office despite an astounding lack of experience and a negligible record. His indisputable political skills, his race and all symbolic values attached thereto—not to mention the promise, now apparently abandoned, of a new and unified America that transcended race—had swept him into office. No one can miss the parallel track the outgoing secretary of state is set to pursue.

What is already clear—what should stand out blazing in neon—are the extraordinary claims now being made for Mrs. Clinton's achievements as secretary of state. One of the greatest secretaries of state America has known, according to the president—and his is one of the more modest assessments. It's not the sort of view, to be sure, for which she can be held responsible, but it is an indicator of the passions that would drive her candidacy for the White House: the first woman president.

No one would dispute Mrs. Clinton's hard work, her travels across the globe, her famous capacity to show up armed with encyclopedic detail on every issue, every side of every question. She has been the most dutiful of secretaries of state, has obligingly and diligently carried forth Mr. Obama's designs for shrinking the American presence in the world. She leaves office having left behind no imprint of a vision, no evidence of concerns other than the dictates of diligent obedience.

None of that is likely to matter in the race to come. If Mrs. Clinton is a candidate, her record and her achievements will be accorded sacrosanct status—a kind that will be familiar to Americans who have watched the past two elections. The 2016 election is, we're regularly reminded, a long way off, but to watch Hillary Clinton this week was to grasp, with a small chill of recognition, just how close it actually is.

I think Rand Paul is going to be a serious contender for the 2016 run.......He brings with him a good chunk of his fathers libertarian support base, and yet he's also able to bring in more traditional GOP support.......He's currently going around building coalitions of the disparate groups who want to stop this administration for a myriad of reasons. I think this guy could be the real deal.

I have my eye on him, but there are still a number of things where I fear he may be reckless in how he makes his case.

Certainly plenty of room for that.

touché! Lol!

If any of them run against Joe Biden and make the worst gaffe imaginable he can still point to the opponent and say hey, you started it.

My thoughts right now are with the other tea party guy, Sen. Marco Rubio. But Sen. Rand Paul will for sure play a major role in it all no matter what direction things go. The big difference is defense, interventionism versus isolationism views, plus the varying strengths they both have of communication, charisma and crossover appeal - to be determined.

I would like to have the domestic policies of either one of them and get our freedom back.

GM, too late to avoid the iceberg but we still have time to move around the deck chairs.

Glenn Beck is saying it is Rand Paul who hit it out of the park last night. He was far more specific. Rand Paul has also been shaping up his foreign policy views to be acceptable to conservatives, to be prudent in our support of allies, unlike his father's extreme refusal to project force.

The three most obvious potential Republican contenders have quite a bit in common, Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, early 40s, white, male, conservative. I hope right now that all three run, run well, and run against the other side, not against each other.

Rumor this week is that a big donor said that Bill Clinton said that Hillary is definitely running.

Adding one name to the mix: Benjamin Carson. Sounds like a candidate for President to me.

Loved Carson's class and message in how he spoke Truth to Power the other day, but being president requires A LOT more than that. Has he ever been in any kind of political campaign? What executive experience does he have? etc etc.

Loved Carson's class and message in how he spoke Truth to Power the other day, but being president requires A LOT more than that. Has he ever been in any kind of political campaign? What executive experience does he have? etc etc.

The bar for president is set really low based on the current resident of the white house.

"Loved Carson's class and message in how he spoke Truth to Power the other day, but being president requires A LOT more than that. Has he ever been in any kind of political campaign? What executive experience does he have? etc etc."

"The bar for president is set really low based on the current resident of the white house."---------------

Crafty is right with his warnings and a bar set low for one Dem does not mean an easy ride for any conservative - ever! Of course Carson is politically untested and high risk. He is my early choice and not necessarily my final choice. We looked at other outsiders last time, like Herman Cain and Allen West. Interesting that they happen to be black. Something has to set them immediately and visibly apart from the politically rejected Republican governance of the past. Coming from outside the process means inexperience but is not all bad. You do need votes before managerial competence comes into play.

One reason I like Rubio is that he is electorally tested, as one of Crafty's tough questions suggests. After rising to Florida Speaker of the House and becoming well known in a highly contentious swing state he won his Senate election by a million votes - without surrender principles or agenda to the left or center. But what agency or enterprise has he ever run? None. He is a potential leader, but not not an experienced executive. Rand Paul is wonderful to me on 99% of issues but has not yet shown crossover appeal. To the contrary, he has trailed Hillary in polling in his own conservative state. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/04/1184561/-2016-can-be-Hillary-s#) Very smart guy but he also lacks executive experience. Paul Ryan is wonderful on mastery of complex issues but given the chance did not draw people to the ticket. Obama won Paul Ryan's home district. He also lacks executive experience.

The Governors have partial executive experience for the job but except for an exception like Reagan they don't start with national appeal. People scoffed at the idea of a two term Minnesota governor being President, same for a half term Alaska governor. Mitch Daniels, McDonnell, Jindal, Nikki Haley also are not really seen (yet) as heavy hitters on a national stage. California and New York don't offer us any experienced Republicans. Rick Perry is the biggest R-state governor with the longest record but stumbled badly entering the national stage. Chris Christie ...? Military leaders like Colin Powell and Petreus are out. People like Condoleeza Rice and John Bolton are advisers more than experienced executives. No one comes in perfectly qualified.

Carson has executive and leadership experience in a much smaller setting, Johns Hopkins Pediatric Neurosurgery, for 28 years. A decent sized team with 121 doctors, either the best or among the best in the world at what they do. His job involved making difficult executive decisions like committing resources of his department to the first separation of conjoined twins, obviously not on a scale of presiding over the US government. He hasn't run any government or public agency or had to answer for much of anything to a hostile press.

In 2012 we put managerial competence with a good agenda on the ticket. We took the safest choice and lost to economic and managerial failure.

Someone has to break through the noise, reach people with a persuasive change of direction message, and open and change minds. Only about one in three hundred million could pull that off, if anyone can. I took my early shot at predicting who it will be. Carson is retiring in July and isn't going to leave the stage voluntarily. If he runs he will get a good look like Herman Cain did, but it may not end that way. People like that perhaps should start at City Council and work their way up but this nation doesn't have the time to wait. Carson will be 64 and 4 years later they will say too old. He doesn't have to wait or work his way up, but he does need a tsunami of support.

Whoever is going to step up and lead needs to do that right now. I give this guy credit for doing so.

I am delighted to see Carson get attention-- including here, but IMHO presidential talk is exceedingly premature.

Good point. He is riding his 15 minutes of fame well. As he paused on one question I realized I don't know his view on almost anything.

2012 was painful for conservatives. Each candidate was flawed in one way or another.

Before we pick the 2016 candidate, we should define what is that job, what skills sets does the President who follows 8 years of Obamanomics need? Is this a regular center right versus center left contest coming or is it something different?

On big things like this I like to expand the range of choices first before we start narrowing. Are the usual handful of suspects the only only ones who could rise to this job? He or she needs executive experience, proven electability in a good sized center or left state and national experience with charisma and temperament, money and organization - and we just narrowed the list to none. Is there anywhere besides elected government from where someone might rise to the highest level quickly? Probably not, but looking everywhere and considering everyone is part of the process.

People like Herman Cain and Donald Trump got noticed and rejected. State Senator Obama got noticed and kept running. Carson is starting to get a look. Not many from the outside ever get that opportunity.

Obama overcame his lack of experience and accomplished the biggest legislation in history. His task was harder, selling us on bad policies. Selling us on good choices with honesty and good communication is a simpler task. Also repealing bad legislation and lowering and simplifying taxing and regulations takes less staff and staff management than writing and passing all those bad bills.

We don't know his view on AfPakia yet (or anyone else's view for that matter). But he has his head on straight with healthcare (what Obama admits is our spending problem) and on taxes and regulations. That's a good start.

Other than this one more link considering Carson for President, I promise to drop the subject:

I caught a Hannity show dedicated to Carson last night and I must say that I was quite impressed with the man on several levels.

First and foremost, and I readily grant that this is an exceedingly nebulous yet profoundly important point to me, I think the man is spiritually sound. His way of making points powerfully exlusively in positives will make it very hard for the pravda mud machine to smear him precisely because I think people are going to respond to him very, very well.

His analysis and ability to speak on health care, and connect it with the larger themes of the American Creed is exceedingly impressive.

His analysis and way of speaking on tax issues is very impressive.

The man is worthy of our further attention, yet let us remember how very much we don't know about him (e.g. zero of foreign affairs), and the risks of having a political virgin take on running for the presidency and should he win, be president.

PS: I would also like to toss out the name of Mike Huckabee as someone to watch for. When I happen to catch his show I am often quite impressed. He too has a gentle manner of making powerful points and his years at this gig may serve him well as a campaigner communicating effectively with a much broader demographic than his presidential campaign of 2008. This gig also gives him flight time engaging with a broad range of issues.

We've had this talk here and I know it is too early and we know too little about him and he has no political experience, organization, money etc. but Dr. Carson starts by having my vote to lose. There is of course more that I need to learn about him, foreign policy in particular. If he has no knowledge and no views whatsoever on all of that he still starts in a better place than his predecessor, Pres. Obama, where nearly all that he knows is wrong.

The leader I seek is the one who can best express the need to turn the country in the right direction, along with the wisdom to surround himself with the best people.

That is the same reason I like Marco Rubio, but with all his political experience up to serving as Speaker of the Florida House, winning a swing state by a million votes and now serving in the US senate, he still has a youthfulness about him where Dr. Carson exudes a wisdom and confidence potentially capable of changing the debate that we are currently losing. Rubio would be perfect as a VP candidate, on the ticket, on the stage, in the news cycle. He will have enough Senate experience by 2016 to make the move up to either slot.

I've watched a bit more of Carson and he definitely has piqued my curiosity.

Also, just saw Sen. Rand Paul on Cavuto and liked what I saw and heard-- not to say that I don't still have the same doubts that I did, just acknowledging that he handled himself well and has much to offer.